The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

It is nice to know that others are also discussing the shortfalls and failings of Democracy and what a gem we have that we must protect.


Tyrannies across the world are crushing dissent. In Britain contempt for the political class is growing. Is it possible that democracy is dying?

By Max Hastings

PUBLISHED: 01:43, 22 June 2013  | UPDATED: 02:05, 22 June 2013

Few modern prophets prove themselves wise enough to invite comparison with Moses, but Francis Fukuyama made more of an ass of himself than most.

Twenty years ago, the American academic wrote a book entitled The End Of History. In it, he announced that with the end of the Cold War and collapse of Communism, liberal democracy had triumphed. It would become forever the dominant system around the world, 'the final form of human government'.

Americans alternate bouts of flagellation about their country with orgies of self-congratulation. They loved Fukuyama's book, which represented them as the winning side, and bought it in truckloads.

For five minutes, it seemed possible that the author's thesis could be right. In the Nineties, even Mother Russia, cradle of tyranny, seemed to be embracing popular consent and freedom.

Communism was the last of the 20th century's evil 'isms' to suffer defeat, after two world wars in which the democracies battled against militarism, fascism and Nazism.

And there was more good news, with South American military dictatorships giving way to elected governments.

In South Africa, minority white apartheid rule yielded to one-man, one-vote black government without the violent struggle many had feared.

A few surviving regimes, notably in China, Vietnam and Cuba, still professed themselves communist.

But the big beasts in Beijing were as greedy and materialistic as Wall Street bankers. Only a dwindling band of British university lecturers continued to fool themselves that Karl Marx was right about mankind's destiny.

Yet today, barely a generation since the publication of The End Of History, its thesis echoes hollow.

Even if communism is a dying duck, everywhere brutal dictatorships are flourishing as if their societies' flirtations with democracy had never happened.

Naive Europeans hailed the 2010 'Arab Spring' as promising a new era in the Middle East. Yet it seems more likely that those nations - Tunisia, Egypt and Libya - will merely be ruled by new autocrats.

The truth is that democracy is ailing - not least here in Britain. Many people despise and distrust politicians.

They doubt that the energy expended on trekking to a polling station once every five years will benefit them or their societies.

A few years ago, Portuguese Nobel prizewinner Jose Saramago wrote a brilliant allegorical novel about democratic corruption, entitled Seeing. It was set in a nameless modern city during an election campaign, where three-quarters of the voters are so disgusted by their politicians that they returned blank ballots.

The government, bewildered and furious  about the mass protest, orders a rerun: this produces 83 per cent of blank papers.

The writer's point, of course, is that modern politics has become meaningless to most people. It has simply descended into a struggle for power among small and unrepresentative elites, devoid of convictions or integrity, who ignore or defy the views of the people who elect them.

Earlier this month, Turkey's prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, adopted one of the notorious phrases of the old fascist dictators: 'My patience is exhausted.'

He then committed thousands of riot police with batons and tear gas to remove peaceful protesters from Istanbul's Taksim Square.

Erdogan has said that democracy is an instrument to be exploited only as long as it is useful. He is thought to aspire to changing Turkey's constitution to make himself an elected dictator.

Most educated urban Turks are appalled by his desire to break with the country's century-old tradition of secularism and to once more put Islam at the heart of law.

He has restricted alcohol sales and attempted to criminalise adultery. More journalists are in prison in Turkey than in China.

Erdogan has been able to act despotically because as prime minister, he has delivered economic growth. He has won three elections through the votes of the small business class and rural peasantry, who value stability and traditional values far above personal freedom.

He can claim popular support, even though his style of rule is a travesty of democracy. Turkey is only the latest example of a nation bent on rolling back personal freedoms or resisting demands for it.

China may increasingly embrace capitalist economics, but President Xi Jinping and his politburo are implacable in denying their people liberty to do anything save make money.

Russia's president Vladimir Putin is an unashamed Stalinist. His country is in the hands of a gangster elite, committed to suppressing dissent and bent upon personal enrichment.

Putin himself is thought to have accrued billions in his personal bank accounts. South America, 20 years ago, seemed to have turned its back on dictatorships, but today the continent is suffering a resurgence of personal rule.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is dead, but his successor intends to continue his disastrous tradition.

Argentina gained democracy in the wake of the 1982 Falklands War, but is now the victim of crazy Peronist economic policies that are wrecking the country.

President Cristina Kirchner can claim popular support: she wins elections by bribing the poor. But while Argentina still votes, its political system is a travesty.

Most people who care about British politics are appalled by the weakness of the current Coalition, led by Prime Minister David Cameron (left) and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (right)

Likewise in Africa, most rulers can claim legitimacy because they have won polls, but they rule in pursuit of personal or tribal profit, rather than in the national interest.

South Africa's ruling ANC party is riddled with corruption and its President Jacob Zuma has been up to his neck in it.

The government of India, hailed as the world's largest democracy, is mired in corruption. Paul Collier, professor of development economics at Oxford, wrote a brilliant book a few years ago, confessing that his own youthful faith in the ballot box as the solution to the Third World's troubles had been sadly mistaken.

Without a free Press, a tax system that forces citizens to think about what is being done with their money, an independent judiciary and an effective and uncorrupt civil service, democracy does not work.

Hitler showed back in 1933 that if a would-be tyrant can win just one election, he can bribe or fiddle the results of every poll thereafter.

Once a ruthless man or woman holds the levers of power, he can make sport with polls. The story becomes much more alarming when we see politics in deep trouble on our own doorsteps.

In the U.S., sensible people talk and write openly about a democratic crisis. The bitter divisions between Republicans and Democrats have created gridlock in both houses of Congress.

The old willingness to cut deals and make compromises to keep government moving has become a dead letter.

A large chunk of the U.S., and especially its old, white, mid-Western, Western and southern heartland, feels as disenfranchised as do UKIP supporters in Britain. It sees a host of things being done, or not done, in Washington, which inspires bitter hostility on religious, economic or social grounds.

The U.S. came closest to being a single nation in the Forties and Fifties, partly as a result of World War II. Today, though, it is profoundly divided, and likely to remain so, not least as a result of the rise of the Latino population.

Different sections of U.S. society want vastly different things for the country; their political leaders lack the will or gifts to reconcile them. And so to Britain.

It is strange to think that less than a century ago, universal adult suffrage seemed a precious thing - finally granted to women only after World War I.

Consider the huge impact of some general elections, above all that of 1945, which produced a Labour government committed to creating the Welfare State.

Today, by contrast, ever fewer people trouble to vote, especially in local and European elections. They feel a contempt for our political class, which seems utterly remote.

We have leaders so excited by plunging into foreign wars that they pay scant attention to the humbler hopes and fears of voters at home. Most people who care about British politics are appalled by the weakness of the current Coalition.

This could well be the shape of things to come, with the major parties repeatedly failing to secure absolute majorities at General Elections.

The result is that we get government at the speed of the slowest ship in the convoy. Most modern ministers of all parties have spent their entire adult lives in the fishbowl of politics and know nothing of real life as lived by the rest of us.

Britain's democratic process invites almost as much public cynicism as do those of Africa or Asia. Accountability seems chronically lacking.

The EU and its distant, all-powerful bureaucracies feeds more public disillusionment. Almost every day, decisions about our lives are being made without the consent of Parliament, and often against its wishes.

Lord Denning, an unusually wise judge, presciently wrote in 1974: 'The Treaty of Rome is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back.'

He was quite right, but his bewigged successors today have plenty of their own crimes to answer for.

More and more unpopular and visibly unjust British law is made by the judiciary, often flagrantly over-riding the expressed wishes of voters and Parliament.

We are entitled to ask: why does no other country in Europe suffer as severely at the hands of its judges - for instance, in upholding the rights of terrorists and their sympathisers at the expense of public safety - as does Britain?

The judiciary displays a sorry combination of conceit and complacency. It has contributed substantially to the British people's mounting belief that, while they supposedly live in a democracy, they are denied their rightful voice in their own destinies.

It is another judge, Sir Brian Leveson, whose report last year into Press ethics threatens an unprecedented legislative assault on Press freedom, that vital pillar of democracy.

There are today some welcome signs that politicians are seeing the perils implicit in implementing Leveson's ill-considered recommendations. But it is dismaying to see judges repeatedly displaying their paucity of wisdom - the quality that, above all, we are entitled to expect from them.

Meanwhile, it remains true that democracy, for all its imperfections, is the least bad system of government to which mankind can submit.

But IF it is to function, we must be able to see some small correlation between what we think we have voted for and what sort of society we get.

The corruption of democracy in Africa, Asia and much of the Middle East places nations at the mercy of elected dictators.

In the U.S., Britain and much of the rest of Europe, we are instead threatened with chronically weak government, incapable of getting big, important things done to preserve our prosperity and even safety.

To restore voters' faith in democracy, we need also to restore that of our politicians. One of my favourite stories of Winston Churchill concerns a moment in 1942 when he was much troubled by the prospect of preparing and delivering a speech to the House of Commons about the war which at the time was going badly.

His chief of staff, General 'Pug' Ismay, said emolliently: 'Why don't you tell them all to go to hell, sir?' Churchill turned on him in a flash and said furiously: 'You must not say such things. I am the servant of the House.'

Who can imagine any modern British prime minister saying, far less believing, such a thing? Until we can restore to politics the legitimacy that can derive only from respect for its processes, democracy in Britain will remain in almost as sorry a condition as it is today across much of the rest of the world.

Even if someone was silly enough to buy Francis Fukuyama's book today, the euphoric vision it offered could invite only hollow laughter.

Read more:

Tags: Max Hastings

Views: 489

Replies to This Discussion

"Emergency data laws: The Government's case for cracking down - solving Rhys Jones and Rochdale grooming scandal"

The presstitutes are once more the propaganda arm of LibLabCon. 

When you read the article, it turns out that in the grooming & other cases cited, phone records were incidental.  If phone records were so key to prosecuting this crime, why did it take to 2010 for the prosecutions to start?  I'm a late-adopter of technology, and even I had a mobile phone in 1997.  The govt was pumping money into Bradford in 1995 to cover-up the grooming scandal.

Scroll down the article, and it says that since 2010, every single prosecution of a muslim terrorist has relied on phone/internet records.  So, even when it comes to invading the privacy of 60 million people, LibLabCon and the presstitutes lie about the reasons.

I just heard a "liberal" "democrat" minister of this coalition government on the radio, attempting to justify this emergency legislation.  He could not answer a single question put to him with anything more than a sound-bite.  As soon as the interviewer pressed him on any of these sound-bites by showing how contradictory it was, the government minister was floundering for something to say.

Meanwhile, this "liberal" "democrat" kept on insisting on how concerned he was about freedom and democracy, whilst attempting to justify rail-roading parliament into passing a law allowing the state to spy on every single citizen.

It was classic 1984 DoubleSpeak.  The interviewer should really have put this to the minister.  The context was so amazingly appropriate.

80% of all phone calls in the US are recorded by the NSA?

After a security researcher exposes that there are at least 3 "backdoors" into Apple's iPhone and iPad, Apple admits this.

Notice how these backdoors allow the other person power to bypass even the (supposedly) encrypted & password-protected data on the device?  Notice how Apple never admitted these backdoors existed, until forced by them being disclosed by a third party?

Is it any wonder that sensible governments/corporations forbid their staff from even taking a corporate mobile phone into China?  These companies must have suspected that the Chinese had the means to access such supposedly encrypted data on mobile phones, just by the phones being connected to a network in China.  But if the Chinese government/hackers can do this in China, then government/hackers can do this outside China.

This is a very interesting report on the scale of mass surveillance in Britain - more than anywhere else in the world. 

These techniques show the real key to the power of the ANPR network. It is not merely a group of roadside cameras, and it does not just react to what it sees immediately: it is a vast database of historical movements. Every vehicle it captures is saved, analyzed and reviewed. This is what transforms the network from a simple, real-time identification tool into a system of pervasive and algorithmic surveillance.

It’s easy to think that automated, networked surveillance methods such as ANPR, CCTV and internet monitoring could not truly be useful because there is simply too much information to be adequately processed and comprehended. As the Chapman case shows, this can be true. Nobody can watch all of the monitors all of the time or follow up every lead as soon as it is generated. In a great number of cases, ANPR will fail to provide a basis for real-time action.

But the technology is advancing fast enough to push many of these concerns to the side.

When a Nazi party comes to power in Britain, all the tools of subjugation will have been put in place for them.  Probably 90% of the adult population are now having all their journeys recorded (either by these car surveillance cameras, or by tickets for public transport purchased using credit cards).  It's highly likely that within the next 5 years it will be impossible to make a journey in Britain without having your movements recorded.  Big Brother is watching you.

One of the very interesting things about that story is that in the 2 cases described, the police utterly failed to connect a child killer with his crimes and failed to know that 2 groups of muslims went off to kill and maim at the Leeds EDL demo.   So, the policing is shit, and when it comes down to them stumbling upon something or the killer fessing up, it's when it comes to providing evidence to the prosecution that the state surveillance comes in handy.

Joe - an interesting bit of news I heard through the rural "bush telegraph" is that vehicle recognition is being used, especially in east anglia, for catching those involved in the minor crime of poaching/hunting with dogs, when a "known" car is picked up on the system, local police are alerted. I'm guessing this was brought in at the behest of the wealthy and powerful landowner lobby.

Notice how close these stats are, between writers in the "free" world vs. those living in totalitarian societies. Chilling.

A survey of writers around the world by the PEN American Center has found that a significant majority said they were deeply concerned with government surveillance, with many reporting that they have avoided, or have considered avoiding, controversial topics in their work or in personal communications as a result.

The findings show that writers consider freedom of expression to be under significant threat around the world in democratic and nondemocratic countries. Some 75 percent of respondents in countries classified as “free,” 84 percent in “partly free” countries, and 80 percent in countries that were “not free” said that they were “very” or “somewhat” worried about government surveillance in their countries.

Like I say, fascism won WW2.

Whilst this new law, which overturns Magna Carta, is being quietly rushed through Parliament.  I only stumbled upon its consequences by accident.  Incredible the media are not discussing it.

Whilst the above analysis is from a whining Leftist point of view, you can be sure this law will be applied to the enemies of islam as the crisis intensifies.

Former director of MI5 and former DPP object to government's new laws holding vice-chancellors responsible if censorship in universities does not occur.

Lord Macdonald of River Glaven QC, the former director of public prosecutions, also opposed Mrs May’s legislation.

“Universities are not places of surveillance … and they cannot become so without fracturing what is best about them,” he said.

“As far as I can tell, no concern at all appears to be expressed in the legislation or in the guidance that what is being proposed is a form of institutionalised censorship with academics at its heart.

“This legislation seeks to control not only violent extremism but also speech in universities even where that speech is not otherwise a crime.

“The role of surveillance and control is one that is entirely inimical to the purpose of a university as we have understood it, which is to analyse, to explain and to discover.

“In that sense, open debate is the lifeblood of an institution of higher learning.”

No complaint about MI5 concealing the statistics regarding the number of muslims convicted of terrorism in Britain (stats not updated since June 2013).

After 50 years of the media policy of not informing the British people about the tenets of islam and the history of the conflict between islam and european values, now the government plans to put a lid on the cauldron by making it illegal for people at universities to discuss these matters.

The man quoted above was DPP, the head of the CPS, during 2003 to 2008.  The time of the greatest cover-up by officials of the grooming gangs.  I think it was on his watch, that GMP had to go above the CPS in order to get one of the largest grooming cases to court.

“Universities are places where free speech should flourish and should be constrained as little as possible.

“This year is the 200th anniversary of the Cambridge Union Society.

When did they speak out when the BNP or even UKIP were being barred from speaking in universities?  They were silent when Tommy Robinson was sent back to prison, and then subsequently told by police what he could say at the Oxford Union. 

The hypocrisy is staggering.  And of course, The Telegraph dutifully channels these two, without a word of criticism concerning this hypocrisy.

Incidentally, none of this is me supporting the government's attempts to curb what can be said at universities. After 50 years of deceiving the Demos, we can expect more and more attempts at censorship by the establishment.  But the censorship will apply as much (if not more) to those who wish to expose The Religion of Peace.

Manningham-Buller was head of MI5 at the time that that institution was clueless about the coming 7/7 attack and clueless about the attack on 21/7 just two weeks later.

Charlie Hebdo buyers attract police interest

Your offer of commemorative badges in support of journalistic freedomhighlighting “Je suis Charlie”, prompts me to suggest a degree of caution following my experience. Tongue in cheek, I asked my helpful newsagents to obtain a copy of the edition of Charlie Hebdo issued after the dreadful massacre in Paris, if indeed a copy was ever available in north Wiltshire. To my surprise, a copy arrived last Wednesday week and although the standard of content in no way matches that of the Guardian I will cherish it. However, two days later a member of Her Majesty’s police service visited said newsagent, requesting the names of the four customers who had purchased Charlie Hebdo. So beware, your badges may attract police interest in your customers.
Anne Keat
Corsham, Wiltshire

This is a comment to a piece on Spiked, about how shallow is the "JeSuisCharlie" response...

According to The Guardian:
"Twenty-four vice-chancellors wrote to the Times to protest that universities must be places where “lawful ideas can be voiced and debated without fear of reprisal”. "
What sort of Orwellian construction is a "lawful idea"..?

We are not only in a post-dialogue world, we are in a world where some ideas are illegal. 

Yes. Ideas are illegal.

Meanwhile we parrot the claim that we live in the freest and most civilised of societies.

Fascism/communism was buying off the Demos with material values/envy and restricting thoughts/words.  That model has triumphed.  And triumphed so successfully that it is almost unconscionable to recognise the triumph.


Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service